logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2016.01.28 2015두52050
양도소득세부과처분취소
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 through 3

A. Article 1(1)1 of the former Income Tax Act (amended by Act No. 9270, Dec. 26, 2008; hereinafter the same) provides that one of the taxpayers liable to pay income tax “an individual who has either a domicile in the Republic of Korea or a domicile for at least one year (hereinafter “resident”).

In addition, Article 2(1) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 22034, Feb. 18, 2010; hereinafter the same) under the delegation of Article 1(4) of the former Income Tax Act provides that “The address shall be determined based on objective facts of living relationship, such as the existence of a family living together in Korea and of assets located in Korea,” and Article 1(3)1 of the former Enforcement Decree provides that “when a person has an occupation that requires a continuous residing in Korea for not less than one year” shall be deemed to have a domestic address.

Meanwhile, Article 2(2) of the former Enforcement Decree of the Income Tax Act provides, “A place of residence” means a place where a person has resided for a long time besides his/her domicile, and in which no close general living relationship is formed as the address,” and Article 4(1) provides, “The period for which a person has his/her residence in Korea shall be from the day following the date of his/her entry to the date of departure.” Article 4(2) provides, “Where an individual who has his/her residence in Korea enters Korea again after his/her departure and the purpose of departure is clearly deemed to be temporary in light of his/her residence or location of assets, etc., the period of departure shall be deemed to be the period for which he/she has his/her residence in Korea.” Article 2(3) provides, “If the period of his/her residence in Korea is at least

B. The lower court, based on adopted evidence, found that the Plaintiff was not a company D on January 9, 2008.

arrow